Case Law Flashcards
(29 cards)
R v Cox (Consent)
Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed … freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgment”
Forrest v Forrest
(Proving Age)
The best evidence possible in circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age
R v Collister
(Intent)
Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include:
The offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
The surround circumstances
The nature of the offence itself
DPP v Smith
(GBH)
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grevious means no more and no less than really serious
R v Tipple
(Recklessness)
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have conscious appreciation of the relevant risk and it may be said it requires a deliberate decision to run the risk.
R v Wellard
(Takes Away)
The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from a place where the victim wants to be.
R v Crossan
(Take away / detain)
Taking away and detaining are “seperate and distinct offences”
R v Pryce
(Detains)
Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody.
R v Mohi
(Kidnapping / Abduction offence complete)
The offence is committed at the time of taking away so as there is at that moment the necessary intent.
R v Cox (Possession)
Possession involves two elements
Physical is actual or potential physical custody
Mental is knowledge and intention
R v Lapier
(Robbery Complete)
Robbery is complete the instant property is taken even if possession is momentary.
R v Skivington
(Robbery defence)
Claim of right is a defence to theft
R v Peat
(Robbery Complete)
Immediate return of goods does not purge the offence
R v Maihi
(Robbery Nexus)
Connection between the act of stealing and a threat of violence
Peneha v Police
(Violence Robbery)
The actions of the Defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom
R v Broughton
(Threat of violence)
The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct or a combination of both.
R v Pacholko
(Threat of violence)
It is the Conduct of the accused which has to be assesses rather than the strength of the nerves of the person threatened
R v Wells
(Agg Rob GBH)
No requirement for harm to be inflicted on the victim of the Robbery. A Person seeking to prevent escape would be sufficient.
R v Joyce
(Together with)
Crown must establish at least two perso were physically present at the time of the Robbery.
R v Galey
(Together with)
Two or more persons having the intention to use their combined force.
R v Bentham
(agg rob off weapon)
What is possessed must under definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing.
R v Archer
(Damage to property)
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm.
R v Wilson
(Interest in property)
Tenancy of a property constitutes an interest in it
R v Strawbridge
(Guilty Knowledge)
Guilty knowledge is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence
